"The Op-Ed is a Forgery Written by the New York Times"
This, according to author Paul Craig Roberts. In his urgent and compelling essay, he breaks the discovery down piece by piece. You'll want to follow the link below and read it yourself for the full effect of the logic in action. Here are a few of his key assertions:
The op-ed is a forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer.
The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.
Roberts is convinced that this obviously forged op-ed is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. Unfortunately, Trump has fallen for the hoax and may not realize his mistake before significant damage is done.
The New York Times motive for this deception, and the reason for the op-ed in the first place, is to serve the interests of the military/security complex, which has long been the newspaper's primary objective. They desperately seek to compel a paranoid nation to hold on to the enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace.
For example, the alleged “senior official” misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump’s efforts to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump’s “preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un” over America’s “allied, like-minded nations.” This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly.
Why is resolving dangerous tensions a “preference for dictators” and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and neither does the “senior official.”
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out for 6 years?
The “senior official” also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a “deadly Russian nerve agent,” an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the “deadly nerve agent” wasn’t deadly. The entire Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the “senior official” is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the “senior official” is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any administration. These are the New York Times’ beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex’s budget from any reduction in the “enemy threat.”
Roberts points out another favorite attack on President Trump used by the New York Times, that he is unstable and unfit for office. He notes that even the wording of the attack is reproduced in the fake op-ed:
“Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president,” writes the invented and non-existent “senior official.”
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write that the members of President Trump’s cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis—the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC, and the New York Times. A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about. The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.
This op-ed hoax puts people in grave danger, all for the financial gain of the war profiteers. There is not a politician left in America that has the nerve to stand up against this atrocity. They are all owned and fearful; they know full well a factual and moral criticism against these inhumane wars and designated enemies will instantly destroy their careers. They will be banished from the Capitol. It is up to the people themselves to denounce the coup government that is waging these illegal wars and destabilizing the world.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left’s blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.
Read the entire article:
I Know Who the “Senior Official” Is Who Wrote the New York Times Op-Ed
by Paul Craig Roberts
Comments
The will of the people should mean something
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup government that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
https://www.thenation.com/article/new-poll-shows-public-overwhelmingly-o...
Trivia question:
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Keep the trivia coming.
I'm not as amazed as I might have been before I learned about the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 for the sole purpose of forcing US involvement in wars around the world.
The people refused to do it, saw no point in it, so the bankers had to do it themselves.
i missed that one at a bar trivia night
a few months ago.
i guessed italy -- i was confident it was WWII. pretty sure i was the only "team" that had the right conflict.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
We have a Mockrazy.
It boggles the mind that after a former President (Carter) said the US is no longer a democracy that this hasn't been the lede every day since he said it. And then that MIT study confirmed it.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
I conclude that PCR uses "insouciant" to mean "ignorant"
Not out of ignorance, but because he's too damned polite.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Not ignorant. The definition is indifferent.
PCR overuses the word, but it is basically a dig at "the exceptional nation". He means we are so arrogant that we can't be concerned to inform ourselves about the facts or their implications. I guess you could say it means ignorant, but its a kind of willful, fingers in the ears ignorance.
I have believed it to be a hoax all along,
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply did not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what it was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Roberts nails it here
This is exactly why I used William Ruckelhaus' resignation from the Nixon Administration as an example of an insider using his reputation and honor to call attention to what Nixon wanted to do by firing Archibald Cox.
Another aspect of Roberts' essay is something that is very important to me personally and that is what would be the long term damage done to the country by those calling for Trump's impeachment or removal via the 25th Amendment. And that does not take into consideration the frightening prospect of Pence becoming President.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Alot of red flags and hard to argue with PCR that it's some
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump’s presidency, and his anger at these alleged “deep state” bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I’ve spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump “may be a threat,” Greenwald responds: “but so is this covert coup” within the White House, which represents “an unelected cabal that covertly imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency.”
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government and NSA’s illegal spying in the “War on Terror.” But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump “may be a threat” to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration as a major threat to democracy is strange. It’s akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house is burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that’s unique to Greenwald, as I’ve engaged with numerous individuals on the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the “deep state’s” assault on civilian political rule. I don’t see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president. If we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal “problem” of intra-administrative discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/11/full-on-fascism-trump-makes-the-...
"none of them are on our side,"
I agree with that.
I'm not clear if, with your extensive quotations, you are endorsing the Counterpunch article. To me, that article is busy attacking Greenwald for defending the Constitution and the political process. The author perverts defending the law into defending Trump.
Even murderers are supposed to be given a fair trial. The author, DiMaggio, does not seem to be in favor of that.
This article fits a pattern at Counterpunch. They print some leftwing stuff, but when the chips are down, they will publish an article that supports the Deep State. I judge Counterpunch on an article by article basis. This article gets an F.
If I endorse it will I get banned or something?
I linked to it for the point I made in my short paragraph. That's all. I'm not a fan of greenwald though.
(The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous.)
(And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration as a major threat to democracy is strange. It’s akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house is burning down in front of you.)
As in, what democracy, we don't live in a fucking democracy. They're not subverting democracy because there is and never has been democracy.
I mean, what sense does it make
to defend the office of the presidency and the constitutional political process when we had a choice between Clinton and Trump and got Trump? The entire process is bullshit from the get go.
Thanks. I understand
The whole situation is like trying to do precision work while using a mirror. Right and left get reversed, and it gets confusing. All the actors here are assholes. But to piss on one is to be accused of siding with the other. We all need to recognize how much spin is being deployed and back off the desire to snap back.
I did not mean to imply that you supported this DiMaggio guy. Sorry. I was trying to understand your take on DiMaggio, but that was the wrong question. You just wanted to say something about Trump. In the context of the DiMaggio article, to say something about Trump automatically included saying something about Glenn Greenwald (a problematic character that I cannot decide about these days).
Peace?
Peace, always.
that's my man ...
https://www.euronews.com/live
Is this really a thing?
". . . progressive-libertarian . . ."?
A comment on Facebook called Alex Jones the same thing.
Whatsit?
I call it an effort to sound intelligent and cause confusion
... and then you always can cleim to just be a troll ... a little later.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Is the undermining and overthrow of the Presidency
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing democracy. Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Yes, it makes him the perfect
target of a coup, doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch, and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Glad to see that I am not the only one thinking that
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment, but many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes it look like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement and isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for it? Hmmm. Fishy that.
ps ....
Published on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 by Common Dreams Thanks to Obama Bailouts and Trump Tax Cuts, Five Largest US Banks Have Raked in $583 Billion Since 2008 Crash
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period."
What a surprise,
Not
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Heartily agree with all of it.
You always put it so much better and in better detail than I do. I've felt from the beginning with Trump the more repulsive and stupid the policy, they better for our owners. They're fine with all that, but they will not tolerate dissent on overall American dominance of the entire world and Trump, for whatever greedy reasons, is bucking them there. And I do not believe Her could have gotten away with his more egregious things and our owners were certainly aware of that. The mask is off, let the final gutting commence openly.
And the more they "fight" Trump the more "credible" Trump looks. I find that personally terrifying.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
IMO, his election represents to the 'first' major Deep
State election FAIL--in my lifetime, anyway.
By that I'm saying that both major legacy Parties always managed to nominate Party candidates who were acceptable to the Deep State and the One Percent--until DT came along, and won the Republican nomination in 2016.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
A successful coup might be worse than the disease
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any more complicated than that.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
I think you're right, WD. And, if WSWS is correct,
the biggest Dem Congressional voting block will be a military/intel/national security/State Dept cabal--or, a 'shadow Deep State.' Probably, one reason that the DCCC and Dem Leadership recruited scores of these candidates to run in open seats.
On November 7, it will be a piece of cake to take out (figuratively) DT.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
There may be some protections
...on domestic issues, but don't expect improvements.
As for foreign policy, the Dems will vote with the Deep State every time.
The trajectories of the past 50 years are not going to change.
Excellent essay, Nancy! Agree with
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author to take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source of the Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the author is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort (by a cabal of officials
).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have a great deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
'Correction' to my comment above: Should
have attributed this excellent essay to Pluto. My apologies!
(Nancy's comments were great, too.
)
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Obama’s “Insider Threat” had Fed workers informing on each other
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/this-really-is-big-brother-leak-...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-views-leak...
Thank you
for reminding us of that! Obama wanted federal employees to rat on one another. Really good for morale, I bet!
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I think the workers would have done that anyway on their
own, Obama wanting it or not.
Stasi-damaged? People can be really lowly creatures and their whispers from one about another are enough to make them finally become fans of the 'fascist league'.
https://www.euronews.com/live
The op-ed is completely consistent with everything else
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube) yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote. She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara Huckabee was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference. I mean, come on: Trump University? The President was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is real and it's Trump and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Yeah, its consistently not news and not impeachable
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who voted for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than the people who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
Does that mean you agree with me about the op-ed?
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
Beware the bullshit factories.
Are you being disingenuous?
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks who TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us Mike Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to get rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
I care about democracy in this country
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every American?
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump this November because it's critical as hell.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Trump is not on the ballot this November.
You have to wait for 2020 when you will be able to vote for Biden if you can stop throwing up on your way to the polls.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
You really don't want to discuss the conspiracy angle, do you?
In the first comment I replied to, you said:
In other words, you have difficulty acknowledging that PCR has been on record for months claiming there is a conspiracy. Are you really that unwilling to acknowledge he thinks there is a conspiracy? What is your objection to acknowledging the man's stated position?
In this second response, you jump on the word "impeachment" as if that is an unjustifiable stretch from the facts on the table.
To many of us, including the OP writer, this op-ed is just the latest stirring of the pot in an ongoing campaign to get rid of/impeach/remove Trump well before 2020. Such provocations have been occurring since before Trump was sworn in. To claim, as you do, that this op-ed was done only to influence this election is a classic "broken clock is right twice a day" argument. Its true it might influence the election, but its purpose is to further the coup attempt that is underway.
That you react so strongly ("I never said") to the word impeachment is part of a pattern. You want to wall off the issue of the conspiracy (which you still only acknowledge with a "seems to imply") from the issue of Trump's behavior and only focus on the latter. This is exactly the pattern of the corporate Dems.
I refuse to adhere to your compartmentalization. The op-ed and impeachment ARE related.
I'm surprised in the end
...at how important the Constitution and the rule of law became for me, considering how dismissive I am of flaws riddling the Constitution, in particular. But this is something that must be done with precision and integrity. It's as if that is all that is standing between the People and complete chaos.
It was the Russia lie that cast the die. Many immediately knew collusion between Trump and Putin was utterly preposterous. The two had never even met. And, I knew with certainty that the NSA had meticulously monitored the entire Trump family for a long time. Every utterance, every sigh, every word spoken or written. And the same for anyone in contact with them. Trump knew there was no election collusion with Russia and the silence of the NSA confirmed that.
The Russia Hoax was such an enormous lie, so blatant and public, it was breathtaking. That was the Deep State talking, completely rogue intelligence agents, and that had to be confronted. There was simply no choice in the matter. The lies about the DNC hacking were amateurish. The lies about the chemical attacks were shocking. Now it's all gone to hell. The people know.
Yeah, its either this crappy Constitution or anarchy
And, if its anarchy, the guys with the money hire the guys with the guns. Then the "constitution" is whatever the guy pointing the gun at you says it is.
The problem is that changing the Constituion in a 21st century society would be like performing open heart surgery on a runner in the middle of a marathon. It can't be done suddenly because the ringing from big changes could blow out the system. The system - just in time manufacturing, global supply chains, megafactories. Any attempt by governments to grab back control of the country by some kind of nationalization, de-privatization would just provoke anarchy, which would lead to a Pinochet-style coup run by the boys with the money.
@Pluto's Republic I sure hope
I sure hope so. It's scary to me how well the propaganda worked. I still can hardly believe it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I feel I should not ask this question, so foregive
that I am still so irked to ask it over and over again since years.
From your response to Timmethey 2.0 ...
I never will be capable to grasp and research all the detailed info this site offers and make up my mind about it.
But I still can not get over my thinking that it is exactly part of the constitution, that you advise not to carelessly tear up, that is the cause for much of the problems we have with a democracy that is not exactly one.
Even though - as you admit - 'Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks who TPTB refuse to prosecute.' you would not consider it to be rewritten and teared up ?
Wouldn't you think it would be helpful to exactly do that - think about which part of the constitution and how much you tear up and rewrite?
I have given up to be sure about anything I read, but I still remember that Prof Lawrence Lessig has tried to point out what in how much might be necessary to be reformed and rewritten of the constitution.
He sounded credible ... but he was mocked and ridiculed and I did regret that. Was that only because he tried to run with the Democrats?
From Lawrence Lessig's Wikipedia page:
I have to go back and read this article. (One thing the www has done to me, is damaging my reading capabilitys stamina to read an article in full.)
All I remember is that they did not take him seriously and back at the time I could not understand why. (Well, I know I am a little slow).
Embrace the Irony
Lawrence Lessig wants to reform campaign finance. All he needs is fifty billionaires.
I give up. Pluto's good article and excellent discussion thread here makes me give up despite its excellent comments.
I have two books to read in front of me Bob Woodward's "Fear" and Chris Hedges "America 'The Fair Well Tour'.
Wish me luck. May be those two men will help me understand and make up my mind.
Here a late speech by Lessig. Haven't listen to it to the end, but I guess it can't hurt to post it.
[video:https://youtu.be/rHTBQCpNm5o]
https://www.euronews.com/live
Let me help you
Bob Woodward has been the court stenographer for the Deep State since Watergate. Bob Woodward went straight from the Office of Naval Intelligence to being a reporter for the Washington Post. The only journalism school Woodward went to was some course in disinformation and propaganda. Bob Woodward is a tool. Don't give him money.
Also note how many people have yoked the "Fear" book and the Anonymous op-ed together as part of a campaign to stampede the public into supporting a coup. Reading "Fear" is simply drinking the kool aid that the Deep State has put on the table.
----
I have two of Larry Lessig's books: Code 2.0 and Democracy Lost. He is a good writer. He has complex ideas. The problem is that the society around him has degenerated to the point where his ideas simply cannot be implemented. TPTB are not interested in funding his solutions (the comment someone made about needing 50 billionaires shows that he can't get money), and the public's attention span and grasp of complex procedures has been lobotomized by social media and cat videos.
I already gave my response about this to Pluto's Republic:
On further thought, the people most likely to change it are the Koch Brothers. They have been collecting state governorships. One or two more and they can call for a Constitutional Convention. Said convention will be bankrolled and controlled by the likes of the Kochs. It will create a new Constitution all right - a reactionary, fascist one. And it will have been done legally.
No, given the balance of money (and the political organization it buys) in the US today, we are better off with the crappy Constitution we have than with opening up debate in a forum the people do not control.
Americans are paralyzed by fear at this idea:
...but is that rational?
While the end result of this idea is prudent procrastination, and it might be a good thing — that's not how constitutions are written and revised. Right now, all over the world, nations are working on revisions or rewrites of their constitutions. There is a well established process for this. Politicians and billionaires are not generally the authors. The process takes many years.
There are groups of legal experts and judges from around the world who travel to countries and help the people through this process. In fact, members of our own supreme court volunteer to do this work. The process usually begins with a review of the world's latest and most modern constitutions to understand the changing trends guiding people and societies. (The People will write and vote on the constitution, in the parts, and as a whole. The bar is very high.)
At the table are scholars, philosophers, economists, lawyers, experts in parts being written, health care for example. (Political partisans, ideologues, theologians, pharmaceutical lobbyists have no role here.) A constitution is not about laws and law enforcement. It's about common civil, social, and irrevocable human rights (which rights should the American people be denied?) and the obligations and general principles the government must adhere to. It describes the system and processes the government follows, and the different parts of government and their interrelationships. It can lay down guiding principles for immigration, forming armies, civil and criminal justice, and the election process. It can also determine when it must be updated again. Every 20 years, as Jefferson suggested, was perfect, in my opinion.
Most important, the constitution in its preamble, can state the people's vision and aspirations for their society and for their individual futures. The preamble can describe why the people formed the State, and how the state will help them achieve their goals and benefit their lives. (There is no other overarching reason for a state to exist.) The people who are forming this government are the people who are at the table. The advisors are there to serve the People.
A constitution will name its form of government, representative democracy for example, and describe how that works in the life of an individual. It will address issues that affect people who are living in the 21st century, and not the 18th century where no one lives anymore. The US is the only nation in the world with an obsolete constitution. While this allows a self-serving playground for corporate interests, it has gravely harmed the American People and their society. It has corrupted and degraded the role the Supreme Court and allowed the justice system to transform into Dante's Inferno. It is the reason that Americans currently have shockingly few of the basic human rights ratified by the UN in 1948. Those rights they do have are now considered revocable by the state.
The US Constitution is also among the world's shortest constitution and amounts to little more than cliff notes with vast areas that are missing altogether, leading to chronic dysfunction. Election law, for example, is a pit of corruption. The brevity of the Constitution, too, has burdened the Supreme Court. They have resorted to inventing laws out of thin air through the dubious process of spiritually channeling the Founders. Unsurprisingly, those decisions are demonstrably NOT in the best interest of most Americans. The People know the Supreme Court is thoroughly compromised and that frightens them. This is a failed-state situation.
I think it is a healthy process for the people to go through. I would hope they keep secession on the table along with the Human Right to Self-Determination. In my view, this country should be broken up into autonomous and independent regions. The people would live much better lives.
Well, in the US, billionaires and their pet politicians rule
What you describe sounds very civilized. I can't imagine that happening under our current plutocratic corporatist rulers. Constitutions are for democracies. We are not a democracy anymore.
The problem here is who decides who gets a seat at this table. We just saw Bernie Sanders have the election stolen from him, despite massive support. I just don't see a bunch of genuinely democratic "scholars, philosophers..." - probably with zero name recognition - having a snowball's chance of being allowed anywhere near writing a new Constitution. The whole thing reverts to a fight about who represents "the people". That's just another election campaign process. And we know how corrupt they are in this country.
I think what you want is the right thing. I just don't see it happening in a convention.
For over 20 years I have had my own ideas about how to do this. I've set up websites and gotten ZERO response. I've emailed the idea to thought leaders. The only person who ever even bothered to acknowledge receiving my email was Jaron Lanier, who is pretty far out there.
If you are interested in my ideas, they are saved at the Wayback Machine. Some of the pages are dead, but the main ones still work
https://web.archive.org/web/20090802184436/http://www.poly-ticker.org:80...
Let me break that into pieces, in case the link gets mangled by the c99p link icon:
https://
**no spaces**
web.archive.org/web/20090802184436/
**no spaces**
http://www.poly-ticker.org:80
***no spaces**
/index.php?title=Poly-Ticker_Home_Page
@arendt and @Pluto - just woke up and read your comments
never gotten that much of awesome answers and analyis. Thank you both for your input. Lots to chew through.
If nothing else I admire and are impressed about the whole discussion here, but especially about arendt's and Pluto's words to help me out.
In my simpleton words and mind, you rock.
Amd now I am off to take another nap to finish the night and tomorrow there will be another effort ... to make up my mind about what you all said.
Thanks, folks, The End.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Hi, Mimi! It wasn't because
It's because he was duping and 'using' many Dem Party activists.
Heard him with a couple of fiscal hawk, 'No Labels' Party hacks, in a podcast with Dave Weigel. Lessig's a libertarian/fiscal hawk. His goal is a balanced budget--entitlements be damned!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks for the memory jog
I knew that something was off about Lessig, but I had forgotten exactly what.
Dave Weigel is a slimy weasel who pretends to be a liberal. "No Labels" has come up at c99p before - an astroturf "Demexit" group that is really a sheepdog. You know folks by the company they keep.
One of Lessig's jobs is at the Berkman Klein Center For Internet & Society at Harvard. Johnathan Zittrain is there too, and he has written some interesting stuff, most notably The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.
But, as you say, when push comes to shove, Lessig is a techno-libertarian, and that's the end of it.
Thanks again.
@arendt People think
People think better of him because he was genuinely distraught about Aaron Swartz. He knew him, you see.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not only that, he was a big supporter of OWS.
This is it in essence:
And I was there when these two spoke on the same stage, freezing our asses off in January 2012. Was very powerful:
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
Thank You for the videos, Mark from Queens,
it's with a sad smile to realize how both, Lessig and Hedges, sounded so clear way back in 2012. Especially the second one. Thanks.
https://www.euronews.com/live
@Mark from Queens Hey, I'd
Hey, I'd forgotten that! Thanks, Mark.
I should say, even in 2012, I was more aligned with Hedges' position than Lessig's, but being in the discussion at all means Lessig should get some props.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Thank you, arendt! Always
nice to have one's opinion validated.
Seriously, as a lefty, I can't say that Lessig and I don't share a single value. After all, there's some cross section between his libertarian value system, and my own. Problem is, IMO, he's manipulating many well meaning folks by emphasizing a handful of issues that he advocates for that may be somewhat progressive, while he's working [on the back-end, so to speak] on other projects that decidedly are not liberal/lefty.
What's surreal was watching Lessig being interviewed by a MoveOn dude in a video several years ago--pandering to the Dem Party Base; then, hearing his interview with Dave Weigel and two conservatives/libertarians who're associated with the fiscal austerian 'No Labels' organization (roughly 2 years ago).
I was going to upload a screenshot of the 'No Labels' National Strategic Agenda, but for some reason, it didn't work. (Having lot of browser problems, lately.) So, I'll try to drop back another day, and post it. It's instructive, IMO. No one that endorses that agenda--it's at their website, BTW--could be considered a Progressive, since it would slash so-called entitlements.
Whoah! Here you go, folks--it loaded,
Of course, their reference to balancing the budget, and 'securing' Social Security and Medicare are what I'm objecting to!
Again, just my opinion.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
“At the end of the day, people won't rememhttps://canineconnexion.wordpress.com/wp-login.phpber what you said or did, they will remember how you made them feel.”
~~Maya Angelou
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
What evidence?
I still haven't seen any evidence that Trump colluded with Vlad to steal the presidency from Her. If you have can you show me what it is?
Manafort would never have been charged for anything if Trump hadn't won. This kind of crap has been going on since lobbyists were created. BTW. One of the Podesta brothers did the same thing as Manafort and even worked with him and yet he was given immunity.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Agreed, Her blew it all by Herself
and then added "RussiaRussiaRussia" to Her 10,001 excuses why she didn't win (not one of which involves anything Her did).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Heh
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
@Timmethy2.0 If you think Putin has
If you think Putin has any particular interest in promoting far right wing neo-Nazism, I think you're barking up a wrong (and largely evidence-free) tree. He's not a particularly good person, and he has some imperialistic tendencies, but he tends to be on the opposite side from neo-Nazis. Sometimes to the point of military conflict, as in the Ukraine and the Crimea. Russians and Nazis don't tend to do so well together. I don't really think Putin's interests are ideological. Also I don't think he gives two shits about American domestic policy or how Americans treat one another.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I beleive this part for sure.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Sunshine on the “Deep State”
"It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back"
Chuck Todd SEP 3, 2018 in “The Atlantic”
Two days later the NYT article hit. That was my reaction to the piece, Chuck called for this.
What deep state conspiracy? There’s your proof right there! So, Trump was right?
“It’s a witch hunt!” Trumps seemingly paranoid ejaculations, do not seem so paranoid with every passing day of nothing but backfires.
“Fake News!” Strzok-Page’s “media leak strategy” Not so crazy after all?
Trump is so unpredictable. The tweeting maniac is impossible to handle. Is that such a bad thing?
I think we can afford it, there is a benefit.
Some people just wanted Washington shook up, they are getting what they wanted.
I don’t know that there’s a better way to bring actual change.
The means are not conventional that’s for sure, what are the results we want?
If he achieves them, will he be credited?
If all his fantastic assertions keep coming true, he’ll be around for some time.
No? Why not, because of anonymous articles like this? Another deep state back fire; keep digging.
We can be sure of one thing
The Trump presidency has revealed that the United States of America does not have a true functioning democracy.
The whole corrupt 2016 campaign season exposed that
for anyone who wasn't a blind partisan of the Lump or of Her.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
as to the endorsement of PCR’s polemical post,
i’d offer these counter-points:
a): “As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously.”
Now he was assistant Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan in 1981, 37 years ago. times change, born in 1939, he must be 70 years old, although arithmetic ain’t my long suit these days...
b) ““Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president,” writes the invented and non-existent “senior official.”
he left out the key (shorthand) point to me: “But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until—one way or another—it’s over.”
This last phrase—“one way or another”—is a green light for Trump’s ouster from within the White House itself.”...
...which is why i’d brought the wiki on amendment five, article 4 to my post, and had asked given that if this isn’t then a call for john wilkes booth, a military putsch, or a forced resignation. did he leave out this? “The senior official references Trump’s corporate tax cuts, its policies of corporate deregulation, and its massive military expenditures as examples of the “bright spots” of the administration.” a subterfuge, or a call to arms for true believers?
c) it isn’t just the purveyors of implements of war who would profit, but those who are running for office in the midterms, plus the neo-cons who want the wars and proxy wars as hedges against the failing US hegemony. and remember: it was the D team who were so aghast about T’s attempts at nuclear rapprochement w/ north korea, and the MSM D mouthpieces that had heartily agreed. stir in leg 3 of the stool: obomba’s speech at U of IL indicating that the D political class that aims to continue the economic and sanctions against 'putin of the kgb' and russian proxy wars.
... sensing a failing unipolar world, despising it, and flailing out against it in the most self-detrimental ways. 'we are the world, don't you forget it!'
sure it’s an inside con, and a crappy one (i made my guesses earlier, who cares?), but the ‘who dunnit speculation’ is also a con. as robert bridger at strategic-culture had noted:
“The reasons are twofold: first, it is exactly what the architects of this letter want – to spark a firestorm and sow chaos inside of the administration, thus making Trump look not only out of control, but cornered; second, in all likelihood the letter was crafted by some pimply hack in the New York Times editorial department. But the ‘Grey Lady’ hides behind the paper shield of ‘journalistic ethics,’ saying it cannot reveal its sources, which could be just another way of saying there was no source at all. Most likely, we’ll never know.”
unprecedented and dangerous as all giddy-up and i'm glad most of you agree that it's so.
Unprecedented and dangerous--to say the least. You
and Robert Bridger nailed it, WD.
As for this,
He's absolutely spot on. I'm getting ready to create a Twitter "Moment," to tackle this issue.
Watching (or, really listening, since it's on radio) the panic exhibited by the Cable News 'talking heads,' convinces me that there's more than meets the eye. And the cable folks know what it is, IMO.
Having had both a lie detector exam, and the so-called "voice stress test," or VSA--Voice Stress Analysis--administered (as part of security measures), I have full confidence that if the various 'officials' have nothing to hide, they'll be cleared (of being the Op-Ed author).
I'm far more concerned about the Dems' push for social media censorship, than I am about the corporatist NYT (or any of their cronies in the MSM) throwing their hissyfits. For now, Republicans are pushing back to some degree, because they claim--rightfully, or not--that the new 'rules' would be applied unequally to them, because of their conservatism.
I haven't forgotten that WJC told 'the Money Honey' that we need a "Ministry Of Truth." (Alex Jones had that CNBC video on his website--but it was disabled.)
Aside for getting the word out about all the scores of military/CIA/National Security/State Dept Democrats running in this midterm cycle, plan to spend my time on Twitter trying to push back on the MSM propaganda machine.
What's most frightening about all these Dem recruits, is that many, if not most of them, are in their early to middle 30's--at least, under 40. So, you're talking about selecting a Dem Party shadow Deep State that could be in place for 40-60 years. Yikes!
Look at Feinstein, and some of the others--almost 90, but won't retire. Whew!
I rest my case . . .
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
thanks, but all that aside,
the far larger point that i'm attempting without success to make here is this: PCR stops at the 'impeachment whispers in the cabintet'. that's fine with me, if pence wanted to start the ball rolling, see how many times the cabinet would move forward as the constitution allows, then see if impeachment (which doesn't always men removal from office: see bill clinton) gets passed in both houses of congress eventually.
side note: funny T's cozy relationship with the clown prince of the glowing orb of the KSA wasn't mentioned, though. that's okay w/ this agenda.
BUT! this is what the anonymous cabal or whatever actually wrote:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."
putsch, assassination, military junta. i'm throwing up my hands over the fact that no one but you has even responded to my comment, even if not on the key issue i'd hoped for. but it really doesn't matter who author it; it's the fact above and that the 'Ptui Paper of Record; All the News That's Fit to Print' printed it, called it virtuous, and acted like the assholes they are in the Q & A additional psyop.
i officially give up.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-r...
Please keep hands
C99p is a very slow board. Rec counts rarely break 50. You can wait days for someone to get back to you. Don't worry. People are thinking about what you said. Its just that, as with all lengthy threads, it gets hard to follow who is responding to whom about what. (The one thing I would like is the kind of indented title list of comments so you could find the first post in a subtopic and read the whole thing.)
On your point, yeah, we are getting close to outright calls for illegal acts: assassinations, coups. Of course, this discourse is the discourse of the corporate media. We here recognize the complete disconnect between what the CM say and what the majority of voters actually want. (You know, things like less warmongering, less Pentagon budget, Medicare for All, etc.)
We are all spectators anymore, not citizens whose votes determine things. But that goes along with my take on America today. There is a war between aristo-criminals. They don't care at all about us peasants. They expect us to pay for their wars and accept the damage those wars do to our country. In this case, the damage is to the Constitution.
The political scene increasingly resembles the last days of the Roman Republic. They had street hooligans like Milo and Clodius beating up their rivals. They had massive bribery. They had proscriptions, where people's property was taken or they were exiled. They had factions lining up to fight (Caesar, Pompey), and those faction leaders expected to be emperor, not some Republican consul.
I hear your concern. I do not see any organized force that can contest with the Deep State factions fighting it out. In fact, I think our best hope is that the factions continue at each others' throats, because they will be too insecure to really implement the police state they are aiming for. At least right now, neither the CIA cabal or the people puppeting Trump would want a police state because they would be afraid they would be its victims.
The idea that the Dems are going to put more ex-CIA/intel people into Congress is scarier than if the GOP were going to put more KKKers into Congress. The entire political process has changed from retail vote getting to corporate franchised brands. Even local candidates are selected by national organizations like the completely corrupt and criminal DNC. Its the DNC that is pushing the CIA boys and girls.
In summary, a plague on both their houses.
@wendy davis Either way, fraud or
Either way, fraud or genuine, it's unprecedented and dangerous as hell. A particularly useless way of trying to rid America of Trump, too. Seems the aim is more to inspire the little guys on the right to kill the little guys on the pseudo-left, and vice versa.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
This is not my theory
but I've also heard the theory that Trump had this written to create sympathy for himself. That seems too clever for the Orange Bozo, IMO, but while we're discussing theories...
Glad to see that actually,
because that's what I said above, the danger of creating sympathy for a fascist dictator. I'd say it's a slippery slope many on the left are treading. Of course, that's not new with Trump and some on the left.
sympathy for a fascist dictator?
Where are you seeing this?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
I've been seeing it for a long time, even before Trump
became prez, while campaigning. It's kind of a tribal thing, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I see it here, take the comment above these for example about the CT that Trump did it himself to gain sympathy. It's not a CT for nothing, it's pretty obvious. I've seen it here with people saying the deep state is stopping Trump from seeking "peace" with North Korea and Russia, which to me is bullshit. I think it's been a major factor in how Trump keeps such a strong base even with all the shit he's done and said, because he's perceived as the "outsider" that is fighting the establishment who won't let him do what he said he'd do. Of course, very similar to the Obama fans who insisted Obama would have done much more good without republican and deep state obstruction.
Personally I think that's more dangerous than all this infighting among the ruling class, i.e., falling for the perception that the problem is those trying to get rid of Trump instead of how fascistic Trump has become and how totally fucked up our political system has become.
Can’t agree with you on this one, Big Al.
“Fascist dictator” would be when all the corporate voices line up behind someone and justify their every word and deed.
Organized, corporate voices like Silicon Valley / FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google), Wall Street, Hollywood and New York, traditional media, comedians, cartoonists, and columnists.
Corporate dancing to fascist dictatorship’s tune may be what we’re seeing, but if it is, the “dictator” sure ain’t Trump.
Off-limits for criticism? That would be Israel and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, not Trump.
All the big corporate voices are ridiculing Trump mercilessly 24/7 and kicking his supporters off the air.
I never thought I’d be with Tucker Carlson on anything, but — especially the day after 9/11 — I can totally agree with this tweet of his:
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1038898689870389248
That’s it, all right. If they can prevent us from asking honest questions — and where 9/11 is concerned, they certainly have — there’s nothing they can’t do.
Including removing by irregular means a president Rust Belt workers legitimately voted in, out of frustration and despair.
Excellent comment, LL. You nailed it! ;-D EOM
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Trump a fascist dictator??????
From my vantage point the Trumpeter looks more like the neolibracon's bum boy. They've got a good grip on his gonads. Every time he attempts to make an independent decision on his own he gets a good hard squeeze to bring him back in line.
"Fascist dictator" is a DKos talking point.
nationalist, racist, dictator tendencies,
I'm not going to argue about it anymore here. To me there's no defending trump. He's said enough to indicate to me that regardless whether he's being stopped from some things, he is a full blown whacko regardless.
I'll call him and Obama and Clinton and all these fuckers at the top what I want. Doesn't matter anyway.
And don't accuse me of being a Dkos whatever, that's ridiculous.
@Big Al There is no
There is no defending Trump. However, obviously the attack published in the NY Times isn't made for my benefit, or yours.
It matters, IMO, why and how a bad guy is being attacked...and by whom.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I'd have to ask why it matters,
particularly related to wealth inequality, imperialism, capitalism, the police state, my grandkids, etc. Why does it matter to me? What does it effect, what does it change? The only way out of this mess is to completely change the power structure in this country and the planet for that matter. This power struggle among the rich I can see as making matters worse for those of us that consider ourselves peasants, but matters are going to get worse anyway unless we revolt. As I said before, I see one aspect of this generating sympathy for Trump and further dividing the country, along the same divide of the ruling class, a game we'll never win if we keep worrying about this shit.
@Big Al That's what I
That's what I'm saying. Systemic change, nothing less.
When I say it matters why a person is attacking Trump, and on what basis, and who that person is, here's what I mean: none of these people, or factions, is on my side, or yours. Therefore I'm not going to applaud when any of them speaks, nor am I going to chime in with any of them. I don't applaud Trump's tweets, and I'm not going to applaud the corporatocracy's media attacks. It's all basically a load of shit, and my failure to join in in no way suggests any sympathy for Trump.
What I'm always doing is refusing to choose either, and holding that space. It's damned hard to do, actually, because so many people insist that if you won't join in to their criticisms, you must be defending their opponent. I've even had my boyfriend say stuff like that to me, when he's particularly riled up about Trump.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I think Chris Hedges got this right
Trump is an ignorant, semi-competent proto-fascist that is being attacked by more knowledgeable and competent fascists. I will add that the Deep State crew see Trump as dangerous because of his ignorance. He could accidentally knock the curtain down and expose the lying scum that has been running the country for decades and they can't have that. Who wrote the op ed? Probably Dr. Evil John Brennan with a little help from his friends.
You got it: Warring Crime Families
I have been saying that our situation resembles peasants whose lands are being fought over by aristos (or crime families). They gallop across our fields and burn our towns in their quest for power. They encourage us to pick a side and fight. But we will not profit from joining them. They keep all the loot for themselves.
Truly voters in America today do not decide elections. The politicians on offer do not represent us, they represent the corporate factions you describe. We are peasants, but do not admit it.
This really goes too far
"There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything."
Every baseball score I've seen over 50 years has been accurate and true. Unlike every justification for war and aggression that any of us born after WWII has seen on their pages in our lifetimes.
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Mr. Roberts makes the tenuous assumption
that anyone in Trump's White House has any credibility or honor to begin with. Shaky ground that.
If you look on this author's site, there is another article
on 9-11. It references a book titles 9-11 Unmasked https://www.amazon.com/11-Unmasked-International-Review-Investigation/dp...
It just came out and yet you cannot get a copy. Look at the 3 comments on Amazon and note that the 3rd one is questioning the CIA and possible control of this book order.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
They Never Learn
It isn't the crime, it's the cover-up. And if you want to make sure everyone wants to read something, ban it.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I know the left. The left was a good friend of mine.
And you, sirs and madams, are no left.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver